We all know, overall, that Edlers positives, all around, far exceed Romes.

This much is obvious.

But Edler got beat badly last night on more than one occassion.

So.

You're right.

As an aside I think most of us (the general consensus as it were) see and value what Rome can do relative to how much he makes. A few guys (Meds) have a real distaste for him and that is, of course, their perogative.

I guess a lot of the Rome discontent comes down to the fact that Ballard is to risky a player down low for AV as compared, in his opinion, to Rome and fans have an issue with Keith not getting similar opportunities to what they view those a lesser player garners.

Larry Goodenough wrote:If Rome played defensively like Edler did last night, he would be under criticism today. But Edler always gets a pass.

If Rome played offensively like Edler does ever, he'd probably get his share of free passes too. But he is just not that player..

So Rome and Edler get paid $750,000 for their equal defensive work and Edler gets a $2.5 m bonus for his offensive work?

Sounds about right.

A good first pass and the ability to see the offensive possibilities through a forecheck, or carry the puck with some degree of control out of the zone after a hard press by the opponent, are as important to defense as they are to offense. Rome can do none of those things.

dbr wrote: (Although strictly for the sake of argument, I bet you'd find a lot of NHL GMs out there happy to pay a player an extra $2.5m every year if it meant they quadrupled their offensive production..)

...and 30 of them that would gleefully pay the surcharge for Edler over Rome.

I would too.

My point is...

If we accept Edler's defensive play, then we should accept Rome's defensive play as well, as they are essentially equal this year.

If Rome's defense sucks, then Edler's sucks as well.

If Edler gets a pass because he's got offensive numbers, then Rome should get a pass because he's a cheap 6/7th. defenseman.

Here's the difference Larry. If Edler mails it in on defense, he will often contribute at the other end of the ice, and with Edler it is often a string of shifts throughout a game, while the rest of the game he plays quite well. Rome, on the other hand, often makes terrible decisions out there on a routine basis, however Louie and Schneids bail his as out 75% of the time.

And if you go back through these boards, when Edler has a bad shift, or even a bad game, it does not go unnoticed by the fans.

The pass that really counts is the one handed out by Vigneault. Rome gets more than his fair share of these. I was shocked to see him sit tonight in favor of Tanev and Gragnani.

It must be killing AV that he has to get MAGS his games in. Looks like he made the decision to get them all in and over with. I suspect that the last few games of the season we will get a chance to see what is really on AV's mind when we see his defensive parings and I don't think MAGS starts the playoffs.

Rome is a serviceable guy for us and never gets a break on his gaffs. Nights he is invisible are good nights for him but he still doesn't get a pass. For me the Rome phobia is still anger over how Ballard has been managed on this team. But if Rome does not get suspended for 4 games in the SCF we may have been strong enough to win one more game.

We just look a lot weaker on D this year and I can't believe the loss of Ehrhoff is the only reason. Something is out of synch.

donlever wrote:As an aside I think most of us (the general consensus as it were) see and value what Rome can do relative to how much he makes. A few guys (Meds) have a real distaste for him and that is, of course, their perogative.

I guess a lot of the Rome discontent comes down to the fact that Ballard is to risky a player down low for AV as compared, in his opinion, to Rome and fans have an issue with Keith not getting similar opportunities to what they view those a lesser player garners.

As opposed to simple mindless "Rome bashing" as you refer to it.

I suppose I can handout the compliment to Rome in that he is an upgrade on Rory Fitzpatrick.

My "real distaste" for him began last year when I would watch him fumble the puck, screw up with it at both ends of the ice, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.....all while Ballard watched from upstairs. Granted, I don't know all the ins and outs and who's and why's, etc., when it comes to AV's reasons for keeping Ballard out and Rome in. However, I do know that when Ballard has played with some confidence he has far exceeded Rome's contributions. I do know that Ballard can hit as well as, and if you factor in hip checks then far better than, Rome. I know Ballard can skate circles around Rome. I know that Ballard can pass better than Rome. I know that Ballard has a better shot. I know that Ballard can skate the puck out under pressure. Rome can do none of those things. After Ehrhoff departed for greener pastures I expected that Ballard would get a shot at cracking the lineup on a regular basis and see PP time. For whatever reason Vigneault went the other way and we all watched as Rome received, at times, 17-18 minutes of ice-time, while Ballard was only alotted minutes in th 14-15 range. So obviously I assumed that Rome was under the desk on AV.....and I hate cocksuckers.....errrr.....

Lately though we have seen Rome screwing up and coming out a minus when only getting 14 minutes of TOI. Yet AV continued to let him play through it, and it wasn't until last night that he finally pulled the trigger and sat him.

I will always dislike a player that is getting ice-time and being played regularly while not improving at all when there are 3 other options available in the press-box and at least 2 of them are an upgrade and the other at least on par. Tanev is an upgrade on Rome. Ballard is an upgrade on Rome. Alberts is at least on par with Rome (I literally am scared shitless every time I see either one of them down below the other team's goalline). Now we have Gragnani, who is on par with Rome simply because his offensive zone contributions average him out overall.....however, Gragnani can take a shift on the PP, while Rome doesn't really see special team's time at either end of the ice.

I wasn't opposed to Rome when he first showed up and was #8 on the depth chart. My "distaste" for him is no different than for Raymond right now. Both of them are ineffective and/or out of position, and either doing too little or trying to do too much. This pisses me off because at the NHL level my philosophy has always been give a guy a bit of time to play through a funk, but when he doesn't, and you have other options, like a full AHL team, then give them a shot and see what happens. And when it gets to that point, well it can't get any worse than it is.

The Jets do not have depth at forward, but I was shocked to see the Tanev/Gragnani pairing actually perform well. No major errors and some decent offensive chances were produced by these two. We have a real bottom feeder here on Saturday, so I suspect this pairing will stay the same.

An excellent, slump bustin' type effort for the Canucks last night. I would have been happy with a loss given the effort. This one could have easily been a rout, and the Jets were lucky to be in this one in the third. How was Pavelic not one of the three stars? Like Donny has reiterated, this is a veteran team. Nothing to get worked up about. I would, however, like to see the top two lines go on a bit of a tear and light some teams up to try to get some of that swagger going before the playoffs.

Hockey Widow wrote:It must be killing AV that he has to get MAGS his games in. Looks like he made the decision to get them all in and over with. I suspect that the last few games of the season we will get a chance to see what is really on AV's mind when we see his defensive parings and I don't think MAGS starts the playoffs.

Rome is a serviceable guy for us and never gets a break on his gaffs. Nights he is invisible are good nights for him but he still doesn't get a pass. For me the Rome phobia is still anger over how Ballard has been managed on this team. But if Rome does not get suspended for 4 games in the SCF we may have been strong enough to win one more game.

We just look a lot weaker on D this year and I can't believe the loss of Ehrhoff is the only reason. Something is out of synch.

I think it does have alot to do with Ehrhoff's departure.

Last year, after Salo returned, our defense looked like this.....

Hamhuis - BieksaEdler - EhrhoffRome/Alberts/Ballard - Salo

Special teams was stacked. Salo moved up and down the right side giving both Ehrhoff and Juice breathers, and we even saw Ehrhoff move to the left and play with Salo on occassion to give Edler a bit of a break, and 5 of our 6 defensemen were competent at both ends on special teams.

This year we look like this.....

Hamhuis - BieksaEdler - SaloRome/Alberts - Ballard/Tanev

Of the bottom 4 guys there only Ballard has the skill level to move up, but Vigneault doesn't trust him or doesn't like him. Our top 4 are the only guys good enough to play special teams, Ballard would, IMO, be an asset on the PP, but again, Vigneault has issues with him.

Any time you lose a 18+ minute man from your top 4 and fail to replace him you are going to have a weaker blueline. Ballard should have been cut loose, dealt somewhere during the off-season and Juice and Ehrhoff given closer to the $5M range. Then Gillis should have dumped Rome and Alberts (minors) and used the combined cash to get a responsible #6 guy that could play 15-16 minutes easily and bump up to the 17+ range when necessary. Tanev was a surprising gem last year and I think that he would have been a good fit in the #7 spot and even #6 if he was playing with a guy with more experience.

Hamhuis - BieksaEdler - SaloEhrhoff - Tanev

Our top 5 all get 18 a game easy, and they could handle it. Tanev has shown he is smart enough to play the right side on the PP in limited minutes. Ehrhoff still gets his minutes because he will be playing special teams. Tanev has a partner he can hand-off to when the puck needs to be carried out of the zone, and Tanev isn't a total noob when he has to skate it up a bit himself, he's actually a very responsible kid with the puck on his stick and he rarely panics. At this point, if you have retained either one of Rome or Alberts, then you have Ehrhoff to move up when Salo is hurt or needs a night off, and you end up having to go out there just like 27 other teams in the league and play with a solid top 4 and a conservatively iced bottom pair. Besides, I'm sure Gillis could have gotten a decent #6 making less than $2M in exchange for Ballard and the salary issues with Juice and Ehrhoff would still have been workable. I think if Gillis has ever dropped the ball during his tenure here, it was in letting Ehrhoff walk.

herb wrote:Like Donny has reiterated, this is a veteran team. Nothing to get worked up about. I would, however, like to see the top two lines go on a bit of a tear and light some teams up to try to get some of that swagger going before the playoffs.

As nice as that would be, I hope it doesn't come before the last handful of games. This team plays well with that swagger, but when they've had that swagger for too long they get sloppy and seem to just expect the win. This was the kind of effort we have seen from the team when they come in and blow teams out of the water. The puck didn't bounce for them and when it did Pavlec was lights out. If they build on this effort and the bounces come, we will see them go on that "tear".

Meds wrote:I suppose I can handout the compliment to Rome in that he is an upgrade on Rory Fitzpatrick.

My "real distaste" for him began last year when I would watch him fumble the puck, screw up with it at both ends of the ice, be in the wrong place at the wrong time, etc.....all while Ballard watched from upstairs. Granted, I don't know all the ins and outs and who's and why's, etc., when it comes to AV's reasons for keeping Ballard out and Rome in. However, I do know that when Ballard has played with some confidence he has far exceeded Rome's contributions. I do know that Ballard can hit as well as, and if you factor in hip checks then far better than, Rome. I know Ballard can skate circles around Rome. I know that Ballard can pass better than Rome. I know that Ballard has a better shot. I know that Ballard can skate the puck out under pressure. Rome can do none of those things. After Ehrhoff departed for greener pastures I expected that Ballard would get a shot at cracking the lineup on a regular basis and see PP time. For whatever reason Vigneault went the other way and we all watched as Rome received, at times, 17-18 minutes of ice-time, while Ballard was only alotted minutes in th 14-15 range. So obviously I assumed that Rome was under the desk on AV.....and I hate cocksuckers.....errrr.....

Lately though we have seen Rome screwing up and coming out a minus when only getting 14 minutes of TOI. Yet AV continued to let him play through it, and it wasn't until last night that he finally pulled the trigger and sat him.

I will always dislike a player that is getting ice-time and being played regularly while not improving at all when there are 3 other options available in the press-box and at least 2 of them are an upgrade and the other at least on par. Tanev is an upgrade on Rome. Ballard is an upgrade on Rome. Alberts is at least on par with Rome (I literally am scared shitless every time I see either one of them down below the other team's goalline). Now we have Gragnani, who is on par with Rome simply because his offensive zone contributions average him out overall.....however, Gragnani can take a shift on the PP, while Rome doesn't really see special team's time at either end of the ice.

I wasn't opposed to Rome when he first showed up and was #8 on the depth chart. My "distaste" for him is no different than for Raymond right now. Both of them are ineffective and/or out of position, and either doing too little or trying to do too much. This pisses me off because at the NHL level my philosophy has always been give a guy a bit of time to play through a funk, but when he doesn't, and you have other options, like a full AHL team, then give them a shot and see what happens. And when it gets to that point, well it can't get any worse than it is.

I just do not understand AV's logic of using Rome ahead of Ballard when both of them were healthy. Speaking of Ballard, I like the fact that he did not ask for extra ice time like the rookie's agent...

Ehrhoff was not in the picture to be re-signed. His camp made it clear they would not negotiate during the season and he was testing FA. MG never had a chance to really extend him before July 1st. He was offered Bieksa type of money. Exactly how much we don't know. His camp out right rejected that offer and never countered. They wanted to test the market but never countered. When the Buffalo deal came down MG had about 10 minutes to decide if he wanted to offer a comparable deal or not. He chose not too.

This assumption that if we had traded Ballard we could have kept both Ehrhoff and Bieksa is so false, unless we offered comparable to Buffalo or high 6 to 7 for a long term deal. Thats what he was after and thats not what MG was going to pay. Now trading Ballard to free up cap to get another top 4 that AV would trust is an option but not to retain Ehrhoff. it just wasn't going to happen. And I would think that if AV still does not trust Ballard and if Ballard cannot come back and help in the playoffs that his time here may be done.

But the Ballard deal did not impact on the Canucks ability to keep Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff's expectations impacted on the Canucks willingness to re-sign him. Plain and simple.

Meds wrote:Besides, I'm sure Gillis could have gotten a decent #6 making less than $2M in exchange for Ballard and the salary issues with Juice and Ehrhoff would still have been workable. I think if Gillis has ever dropped the ball during his tenure here, it was in letting Ehrhoff walk.

Gillis clearly did not value Ehrhoff at whatever the going rate was. The GM chose to move on.

This past off season, Gillis, Vigneault and Ballard all spoke about Ballard getting a fresh start here in 2011/12 and that Ehrhoff's departure combined with the intention of giving Salo limited minutes meant that there was going to be a great opportunity for Ballard to prove himself to the coaching staff and own more responsibility on the team.

This clearly has not happened.

While Ballard performed markedly better this year than last, the injury bug has bit him again (three concussions in his two years here I believe, plus the knee injury last year) and more importantly Salo has played very well. Hamhuis, Bieksa and Edler clearly aren't going to be moving down the depth chart anytime soon, so that left Ballard on the 3rd pairing again.

Given the good health and performance of his teammates, there has bee zero justification for giving Ballard more ice time (even though I would argue Ballard should have been given a shot on the PP, but whatever).

Honestly, I don't know how many more points this team would have with Ehrhoff in Salo's place. We'll see what happens in the playoffs, but I thought Ehrhoff's playoff performance last year was underwhelming.

Ehrhoff was not in the picture to be re-signed. His camp made it clear they would not negotiate during the season and he was testing FA. MG never had a chance to really extend him before July 1st. He was offered Bieksa type of money. Exactly how much we don't know. His camp out right rejected that offer and never countered. They wanted to test the market but never countered. When the Buffalo deal came down MG had about 10 minutes to decide if he wanted to offer a comparable deal or not. He chose not too.

This assumption that if we had traded Ballard we could have kept both Ehrhoff and Bieksa is so false, unless we offered comparable to Buffalo or high 6 to 7 for a long term deal. Thats what he was after and thats not what MG was going to pay. Now trading Ballard to free up cap to get another top 4 that AV would trust is an option but not to retain Ehrhoff. it just wasn't going to happen. And I would think that if AV still does not trust Ballard and if Ballard cannot come back and help in the playoffs that his time here may be done.

But the Ballard deal did not impact on the Canucks ability to keep Ehrhoff. Ehrhoff's expectations impacted on the Canucks willingness to re-sign him. Plain and simple.

Always love HW's inside scoop.

I knew he rejected the Bieksa-like deal. I nearly fell over when Buffalo gave him $10M this season!

I didn't realize that he and his agent had made it clear he was testing the FA waters. His cap hit to the Sabers is only $4m, so I'm assuming it was the length of the deal that sold him. Kind of a bummer really, but when the attitude is simply dollar signs and you don't give your current team that you just went to the finals with a chance other than to reject their offer, well I think that would have been a problem.

I agree, Ballard will be done at the end of this year, but for me I don't think it will have anything to do with playoff performance. I'm pretty sure he gets moved regardless, unless he puts up 20 points and lights it up like none before that is. If Ballard doesn't ask from a trade I'll be shocked, and that would also speak volumes about his character IMO, to stay where you aren't getting a fair shake from the coach but are willing to grin and bear it just to help the team however you can, that's a player I want on the roster.